Blindness Caused by Cosmetic Filler Injection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vascular occlusion causing blindness is a rare yet greatly feared complication of the use of facial aesthetic fillers. The authors performed a review of the aesthetic literature to ascertain the reported cases of blindness and the literature reporting variations in the vascular anatomy of the human face. The authors suggest a small but potentially helpful addition to the accepted management of the acute case. Cases of blindness, mostly irreversible, from aesthetic filler injections have been reported from Asia, Europe, and North America. Autologous fat appears to be the most frequent filler causing blindness. Some cases of partial visual recovery have been reported with hyaluronic acid and calcium hydroxylapatite fillers. The sudden profusion of new medical and nonmedical aesthetic filler injectors raises a new cause for alarm about patient safety. The published reports in the medical literature are made by experienced aesthetic surgeons and thus the actual incidence may be even higher. Also, newer injectors may not be aware of the variations in the pattern of facial vascular arborization. The authors present a summary of the relevant literature to date and a suggested helpful addition to the protocols for urgent management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".